SHEEP PROTECTION.
Following is a full text of the remarks of Mr. COTTON on the passage of his bill H. R. 36--see page 46.
Mr. SPEAKER--The principles of this bill are new, so far as the rural districts of the State are concerned, that is, the principle of killing. But it is not new in some of our cities, even in this State, and in some of the Eastern cities it has long been in practice, and it works well. What, sir, is the dread of the farmer that is raising sheep? It is not the fear of the decline in the price of wool or of sheep, but the dread of having his flock destroyed by the everlasting cur.
This bill provides that the dog that is not registered and ornamented with the proper tag is an outlaw and may be killed whereever found. The dog is a peculiar animal. He is like the sneak that prowls around our houses at night and is gone when the light comes. He does his "mischief" in the still hours of night. He is unlike the intruding horse or cow that breaks into your premises. You find them there in the morning and may hold them until damage is paid. But the dog has destroyed your sheep and fled to his owner's shed, who is willing to swear that he had not been from his premises for two weeks at least. The only way to reach him is with cold lead. To-day we have 200,000 dogs in Indiana. What is the result? Less than 1,000,000 sheep, and we would double the number of sheep in a short time if it was not for the fear that the farmer has of losing his flock by the dogs.
Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that the Township Trustees of the several Townships of the State, for the fiscal year ending last June, paid for sheep killed by dogs over $56,000, and the funds ran short in many Townships, and the sheep were not paid for. A large per cent. of those paid for were paid at a reduced rate, and I think that I am justified from these figures is saying that the value of sheep killed last year was $100,000 at least.
The number of sheep in this State has decreased, while it should increase. It is not for the want of profit in raising sheep, for experience shows that they pay as large a per cent. as any stock raised on the farm.
I am asked what is the objection to the present law. I answer that the Assessor does not get over 50 per cent. of the dogs on his list, and that 25 per cent. of those belong to to persons that pay no tax.
This bill works no hardship to the man that pays his license on his dog. Why should not the owners of the dogs pay for the damage done by them? If my horse, cow or hog damages my neighbor's property, I must pay for it under the law. Now, gentlemen, the question for you to settle is whether we shall raise dogs or sheep.
The bill passed the House by yeas, 61; nays, 24.
